Should every federal tax deduction be abolished?

[opebo]

My idea of a fair tax is one that causes equal pain to everyone, so that everyone has an incentive to reduce spending. The $35000 deduction would may taxes painfree for many people, at the expense of many others.

I assure you that people who make less than $35,000 experience plenty of pain!  Certainly a lot more than the rich.

[David S]

My idea of a fair tax is one that causes equal pain to everyone, so that everyone has an incentive to reduce spending. The $35000 deduction would may taxes painfree for many people, at the expense of many others.

I assure you that people who make less than $35,000 experience plenty of pain!  Certainly a lot more than the rich.

How would you know?

[A18]

I do not believe a completely flat tax to be fair, because you have to spend some of it on needs, and people shouldn't have to take care of the government before they put food on the table.

The filing thing might be annoying, but once we eventually abolish the income tax altogether it won't be an issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

In 1922, the effective tax rate on the wealthy was 50 percent, who paid a total of $77 million into the Treasury. By 1927, Coolidge had cut their tax rate to 20 percent -- but the same group paid $230 million in taxes. Meanwhile, the total tax burden on people making less than $10,000 fell from $130 million in 1923 to less than $20 million in 1929.

In 1920, 36% of the population owned automobiles. By 1930, it was 60%.

In 1920, no one owned a radio. By 1930, 46% of the population did. Electric lighting went from 35% to 68%. Flush toliets went from 21% to 51%.

If you think the majority of Americans missed out on the prosperity of the '20s, you're just wrong, plain and simple.

The Great Depression had just started in 1930, and was a direct result of Coolidge's economic policies.

[A18]

Point? Unless you're trying to say that the 1920s prosperity was really much greater, but people became instantly poorer in 1929/1930, but that's obviously absurd.

[phk]

The problem with markets is that there are two conflicting (albeit with some gradient) interests that shape market policy: the need for market responsiveness to the individual (allowing one person's ideas/products to be evaluated and disseminated easily, to the benefit of society as a whole) and the need for market responsiveness to the society (ensuring that society's common interests and needs aren't trampled by overzealous and shortsighted individuals, so that everyone will benefit as they ought to). While laissez-faire economics places the individual right at the forefront to the exclusion of a direct societal influence, communism places society first to the exclusion of a direct individual influence. In that way, neither embrace apparatus to cope with the neglected value, creating a huge debilitating flaw in each system. As to where the ideal equilibrium lies, I would like to think it lies exactly where I am, in the "more or less socialist" category (halfway between the complete exclusion of government seen at +10 on the political compass, and the complete exclusion of the individual, which I think is probably some ways to the left of the -10 on the compass because of its obvious impossibility given the practically unquestioned physical existence of the individual.

[opebo]

The problem with markets is that there are two conflicting (albeit with some gradient) interests that shape market policy: the need for market responsiveness to the individual (allowing one person's ideas/products to be evaluated and disseminated easily, to the benefit of society as a whole) and the need for market responsiveness to the society (ensuring that society's common interests and needs aren't trampled by overzealous and shortsighted individuals, so that everyone will benefit as they ought to). While laissez-faire economics places the individual right at the forefront to the exclusion of a direct societal influence, communism places society first to the exclusion of a direct individual influence. In that way, neither embrace apparatus to cope with the neglected value, creating a huge debilitating flaw in each system. As to where the ideal equilibrium lies, I would like to think it lies exactly where I am, in the "more or less socialist" category (halfway between the complete exclusion of government seen at +10 on the political compass, and the complete exclusion of the individual, which I think is probably some ways to the left of the -10 on the compass because of its obvious impossibility given the practically unquestioned physical existence of the individual.

Only a person can have an interest.  What you are describing as 'society's common interests' are only individual interests that may happen to coincide for most people.  This distinction is important I think in seeing the lack of appeal of the -10 position above.  It prioritizes 'society' over individuals, and of course society is just a concept.  I think people are separate and selfish individuals who sacrifice freedoms to the State in return for security.  This should lead to a compromise around 0, or even possibly somewhat above zero.